fullbody workout article
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
Great article. Great workout but need to be altered every other week to include:
1. Squat
2A. Dips
2B. Close Grip Chin Ups
3A. Military Press
3B. Abs
1. Squat
2A. Dips
2B. Close Grip Chin Ups
3A. Military Press
3B. Abs
Interseting Faz. Not sure about this bit though:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.</div>
Any thoughts?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.</div>
Any thoughts?
I
imported_frivolousz21
Guest
<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 19 2006,16:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interseting Faz. Not sure about this bit though:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.</div>
Any thoughts?</div>
I agree with this.
I can honestly say Ive gained the most size from the 15's then the others.
(Lol @ Sep. 19 2006,16:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interseting Faz. Not sure about this bit though:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.</div>
Any thoughts?</div>
I agree with this.
I can honestly say Ive gained the most size from the 15's then the others.
I
imported_etothepii
Guest
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now, I will refer people to a study that was done comparing 3 different routines. (Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60.) They used an 8-week high-intensity training program for the legs. Workouts were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. The subjects used one of three different regimens. The different training regimens were designed to be approximately equal in volume (resistance x repetitions x sets) with the rest periods between sets and exercises adjusted according to the strength-endurance continuum. Therefore, those individuals working on the high-rep end of the continuum performed fewer sets and had shorter rest periods compared with the other training groups.
The exercises were performed in the fixed order of leg press, squat, and knee extension. After warming up:
· The Low-Rep group used their 3-5RM for four sets with 3 min rest between sets and exercises.
· The Intermediate-Rep group used their 9-11RM for three sets with 2 min rest.
· The High-Rep group used their 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest.
During the study, the resistance was progressively increased as subjects were able to perform more reps in order to ensure subjects were always using their true RM for each rep range.
So what happened? Did the type-I fibers increase most in the high-rep group? Did only the type-II fibers hypertrophy in the low rep group? If you believe you must do high reps for type-I fibers to grow and low reps for type-II fibers to grow then that’s exactly what should have happened!
On the other hand, if hypertrophy is a matter of load, and all fibers hypertrophy in response to increasing load, then hypertrophy should go up as load goes up. In other words the group that lifted the heaviest relative weight should have experienced the greatest amount of hypertrophy in ALL fiber types irrespective of the number of reps (within reason). And that is exactly what happened.
Here is a breakdown of the hypertrophy caused by each rep range. [Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]
High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
· pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)
Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)
</div>
The exercises were performed in the fixed order of leg press, squat, and knee extension. After warming up:
· The Low-Rep group used their 3-5RM for four sets with 3 min rest between sets and exercises.
· The Intermediate-Rep group used their 9-11RM for three sets with 2 min rest.
· The High-Rep group used their 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest.
During the study, the resistance was progressively increased as subjects were able to perform more reps in order to ensure subjects were always using their true RM for each rep range.
So what happened? Did the type-I fibers increase most in the high-rep group? Did only the type-II fibers hypertrophy in the low rep group? If you believe you must do high reps for type-I fibers to grow and low reps for type-II fibers to grow then that’s exactly what should have happened!
On the other hand, if hypertrophy is a matter of load, and all fibers hypertrophy in response to increasing load, then hypertrophy should go up as load goes up. In other words the group that lifted the heaviest relative weight should have experienced the greatest amount of hypertrophy in ALL fiber types irrespective of the number of reps (within reason). And that is exactly what happened.
Here is a breakdown of the hypertrophy caused by each rep range. [Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]
High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
· pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)
Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)
</div>
<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 19 2006,16:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interseting Faz. Not sure about this bit though:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.</div>
Any thoughts?</div>
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? More mitochondria?
(Lol @ Sep. 19 2006,16:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interseting Faz. Not sure about this bit though:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The second type of growth, however, occurs when your muscles are forced to contract for longer periods of time. Typically, this means using lighter loads that allow you to complete 12 to 15 repetitions. This increases the number of energy-producing structures within the fiber. So you don't get significantly stronger, but you do get bigger.</div>
Any thoughts?</div>
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? More mitochondria?
Here's a quote from one of Dan's articles on the subject:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In summary it is very common to see studies reflecting both increased protein synthesis and hypertrophy with a myriad of rep ranges and resistance training protocols. The extent of hypertrophy may be a direct reflection in increased translational efficiency or an increase in pre-translational abundance of mRNA. The differences may be owing to the training status of the individual and not necessarily the rep range used in the resistance training routine. Although it appears that the rep range will have an impact on metabolic shifts in isoform content this does not change the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio but merely dictates which fiber type will experience the greater amount of hypertrophy. </div>
So, as I understand it then: when hypertrophy occurs in any particular fibre, the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio doesn't really change regardless of rep range. But what rep range does effect is the amount of hypertrophy experienced by different fibre types.
Have I understood correctly?
The quote is from this article:
Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy
Edited to add:
So it's not so much that there's a different kind of hypertrophy, as the article suggested, but that hypertrophy occurs in different fibre types for different rep ranges.
Heavy loads should give us greater hypertrophy as more fibres will be affected and so there's more potential for growth if we eat right, n'est-ce pas?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In summary it is very common to see studies reflecting both increased protein synthesis and hypertrophy with a myriad of rep ranges and resistance training protocols. The extent of hypertrophy may be a direct reflection in increased translational efficiency or an increase in pre-translational abundance of mRNA. The differences may be owing to the training status of the individual and not necessarily the rep range used in the resistance training routine. Although it appears that the rep range will have an impact on metabolic shifts in isoform content this does not change the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio but merely dictates which fiber type will experience the greater amount of hypertrophy. </div>
So, as I understand it then: when hypertrophy occurs in any particular fibre, the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio doesn't really change regardless of rep range. But what rep range does effect is the amount of hypertrophy experienced by different fibre types.
Have I understood correctly?
The quote is from this article:
Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy
Edited to add:
So it's not so much that there's a different kind of hypertrophy, as the article suggested, but that hypertrophy occurs in different fibre types for different rep ranges.
Heavy loads should give us greater hypertrophy as more fibres will be affected and so there's more potential for growth if we eat right, n'est-ce pas?
Fausto
HST Expert
Eto
Nice article...the only pain in the arse is that these guys always lend up using only one part of the body so one never gets a conclusive research article getting the whole body and checking growth pattrens for the whole body...but these things cost money and perhaps that is why.
According to this article, the note that Lol highlighted would be disproved here...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)</div>
For the 9-11 rep range, type 1 fibres show the most growth, compared to the 3 - 5 range and only type IIB shows better growth than the lower range, however if we put them altogether, the low rep range comes out tops for all fibre types together.
Most growth should occur during the lower rep ranges as per HST...however it looks like diferent boidy type fibre compositions could end up showing different growth patterns due to fibre type composition...am I right?
Maybe Dan or Mikey or even Bryan would be the right guys to jump in here and...clarify!
Nice article...the only pain in the arse is that these guys always lend up using only one part of the body so one never gets a conclusive research article getting the whole body and checking growth pattrens for the whole body...but these things cost money and perhaps that is why.
According to this article, the note that Lol highlighted would be disproved here...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)</div>
For the 9-11 rep range, type 1 fibres show the most growth, compared to the 3 - 5 range and only type IIB shows better growth than the lower range, however if we put them altogether, the low rep range comes out tops for all fibre types together.
Most growth should occur during the lower rep ranges as per HST...however it looks like diferent boidy type fibre compositions could end up showing different growth patterns due to fibre type composition...am I right?
Maybe Dan or Mikey or even Bryan would be the right guys to jump in here and...clarify!
<div>
(Fausto @ Sep. 20 2006,07:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Eto
Nice article...the only pain in the arse is that these guys always lend up using only one part of the body so one never gets a conclusive research article getting the whole body and checking growth pattrens for the whole body...but these things cost money and perhaps that is why.
According to this article, the note that Lol highlighted would be disproved here...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)</div>
For the 9-11 rep range, type 1 fibres show the most growth, compared to the 3 - 5 range and only type IIB shows better growth than the lower range, however if we put them altogether, the low rep range comes out tops for all fibre types together.
Most growth should occur during the lower rep ranges as per HST...however it looks like diferent boidy type fibre compositions could end up showing different growth patterns due to fibre type composition...am I right?
Maybe Dan or Mikey or even Bryan would be the right guys to jump in here and...clarify!
</div>
thats basicly how i feel on the subject fausto.
i think doing 15s10s5s, is better than sticking with one rep range.
(Fausto @ Sep. 20 2006,07:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Eto
Nice article...the only pain in the arse is that these guys always lend up using only one part of the body so one never gets a conclusive research article getting the whole body and checking growth pattrens for the whole body...but these things cost money and perhaps that is why.
According to this article, the note that Lol highlighted would be disproved here...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)
Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)</div>
For the 9-11 rep range, type 1 fibres show the most growth, compared to the 3 - 5 range and only type IIB shows better growth than the lower range, however if we put them altogether, the low rep range comes out tops for all fibre types together.
Most growth should occur during the lower rep ranges as per HST...however it looks like diferent boidy type fibre compositions could end up showing different growth patterns due to fibre type composition...am I right?
Maybe Dan or Mikey or even Bryan would be the right guys to jump in here and...clarify!
thats basicly how i feel on the subject fausto.
i think doing 15s10s5s, is better than sticking with one rep range.
<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 19 2006,21:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here's a quote from one of Dan's articles on the subject:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In summary it is very common to see studies reflecting both increased protein synthesis and hypertrophy with a myriad of rep ranges and resistance training protocols. The extent of hypertrophy may be a direct reflection in increased translational efficiency or an increase in pre-translational abundance of mRNA. The differences may be owing to the training status of the individual and not necessarily the rep range used in the resistance training routine. Although it appears that the rep range will have an impact on metabolic shifts in isoform content this does not change the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio but merely dictates which fiber type will experience the greater amount of hypertrophy. </div>
So, as I understand it then: when hypertrophy occurs in any particular fibre, the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio doesn't really change regardless of rep range. But what rep range does effect is the amount of hypertrophy experienced by different fibre types.
Have I understood correctly?
The quote is from this article:
Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy
Edited to add:
So it's not so much that there's a different kind of hypertrophy, as the article suggested, but that hypertrophy occurs in different fibre types for different rep ranges.
Heavy loads should give us greater hypertrophy as more fibres will be affected and so there's more potential for growth if we eat right, n'est-ce pas?</div>
Yes LOL you are getting what I was saying in that article.
Now also understand, that even though the heavier loads should produce the greater amount of stimulus, the greater load also increases the rate of fatigue. Which would then reduce the amount of work done.
So this is one reason why most studies are pointing to moderate loads with moderate work to acheive the best results.
Now if there was only a way to increase the work done while still using and increasing heavy loads, man wouldn't that be nice................
(Lol @ Sep. 19 2006,21:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Here's a quote from one of Dan's articles on the subject:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In summary it is very common to see studies reflecting both increased protein synthesis and hypertrophy with a myriad of rep ranges and resistance training protocols. The extent of hypertrophy may be a direct reflection in increased translational efficiency or an increase in pre-translational abundance of mRNA. The differences may be owing to the training status of the individual and not necessarily the rep range used in the resistance training routine. Although it appears that the rep range will have an impact on metabolic shifts in isoform content this does not change the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio but merely dictates which fiber type will experience the greater amount of hypertrophy. </div>
So, as I understand it then: when hypertrophy occurs in any particular fibre, the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio doesn't really change regardless of rep range. But what rep range does effect is the amount of hypertrophy experienced by different fibre types.
Have I understood correctly?
The quote is from this article:
Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy
Edited to add:
So it's not so much that there's a different kind of hypertrophy, as the article suggested, but that hypertrophy occurs in different fibre types for different rep ranges.
Heavy loads should give us greater hypertrophy as more fibres will be affected and so there's more potential for growth if we eat right, n'est-ce pas?</div>
Yes LOL you are getting what I was saying in that article.
Now also understand, that even though the heavier loads should produce the greater amount of stimulus, the greater load also increases the rate of fatigue. Which would then reduce the amount of work done.
So this is one reason why most studies are pointing to moderate loads with moderate work to acheive the best results.
Now if there was only a way to increase the work done while still using and increasing heavy loads, man wouldn't that be nice................
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Sep. 20 2006,13:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now if there was only a way to increase the work done while still using and increasing heavy loads, man wouldn't that be nice................
</div>
What? You mean there is?
(Dan Moore @ Sep. 20 2006,13:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now if there was only a way to increase the work done while still using and increasing heavy loads, man wouldn't that be nice................
What? You mean there is?
Lifting N Tx
New Member
This is interesting stuff, which raises a question or three.
I've assumed that the biggest difference between competitive bodybuilders and competitive lifters is that typical competitive bodybuilding routines (when steroid aided) build a lot more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. more sarcomere hypertrophy for the lifters. Dan's article makes that seem unlikely, unless there is a big difference in relative amounts of type I v type II development.
Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.
I've assumed that the biggest difference between competitive bodybuilders and competitive lifters is that typical competitive bodybuilding routines (when steroid aided) build a lot more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. more sarcomere hypertrophy for the lifters. Dan's article makes that seem unlikely, unless there is a big difference in relative amounts of type I v type II development.
Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.
I posted the article on the T-Nation forum and did not get even one response.
That site consists mostly of arrogant blockheads.
Whereas on this site, we are all
That site consists mostly of arrogant blockheads.
Whereas on this site, we are all
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is interesting stuff, which raises a question or three.
I've assumed that the biggest difference between competitive bodybuilders and competitive lifters is that typical competitive bodybuilding routines (when steroid aided) build a lot more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. more sarcomere hypertrophy for the lifters. Dan's article makes that seem unlikely, unless there is a big difference in relative amounts of type I v type II development.
Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
Note the fiber type analysis in my review of Fry's work on intensity
http://www.hypertrophy-research.com/newslet....006.pdf
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is interesting stuff, which raises a question or three.
I've assumed that the biggest difference between competitive bodybuilders and competitive lifters is that typical competitive bodybuilding routines (when steroid aided) build a lot more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. more sarcomere hypertrophy for the lifters. Dan's article makes that seem unlikely, unless there is a big difference in relative amounts of type I v type II development.
Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
Note the fiber type analysis in my review of Fry's work on intensity
http://www.hypertrophy-research.com/newslet....006.pdf
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
From what I remember Dan also posted a study once showing the relative fiber make up of body builder vs powerlifters and just normal people, and body builders actually had more type I fibers as a percentage. I think the main difference could probably be found in other variables. Some lifters are stronger than Coleman with smaller muscles, but then are they eating to gain muscle? Strength also involves the CNS and PNS, and you can train them to greater efficiency without necessarily eating enough to put on massive amounts of muscle. The relationship between strength and size is there but there are two many and sometimes different variables involved in each to make it a 1 to 1 relationship.
Anyone check out the link to the five exercises that work the whole body? Seems likethe base of a basic powerlifting routine a la Starr and Pendlay. Nice of Men's Health to catch up...
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
From what I remember Dan also posted a study once showing the relative fiber make up of body builder vs powerlifters and just normal people, and body builders actually had more type I fibers as a percentage. I think the main difference could probably be found in other variables. Some lifters are stronger than Coleman with smaller muscles, but then are they eating to gain muscle? Strength also involves the CNS and PNS, and you can train them to greater efficiency without necessarily eating enough to put on massive amounts of muscle. The relationship between strength and size is there but there are two many and sometimes different variables involved in each to make it a 1 to 1 relationship.
Anyone check out the link to the five exercises that work the whole body? Seems likethe base of a basic powerlifting routine a la Starr and Pendlay. Nice of Men's Health to catch up...
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is interesting stuff, which raises a question or three.
I've assumed that the biggest difference between competitive bodybuilders and competitive lifters is that typical competitive bodybuilding routines (when steroid aided) build a lot more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. more sarcomere hypertrophy for the lifters. Dan's article makes that seem unlikely, unless there is a big difference in relative amounts of type I v type II development.
Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
Also keep in mind that there is a large difference in work betwen the two extremes.
Weightlifters generally use heavier load but less total work, whereas BB use somewhat lighter loads but much greater volumes of great.
When trying to equate the work done the problem is fatigue, IE it's much harder to get in the same workload with your 3RM than your 10.
As far as fiber types there is a mixed bag depending on muscle examined but for the most part we are all about 50/50, some may be 60/40 II/1 or the opposite but we all generally fall into the realm of 50/50.
Which is why training for a specific type is ridiculous to me at least, other may disagree. If working within a load that recruits all fibers the bigger difference would be fatigue rate of the MUs themselves, IE higher fatigue rate MUs would have a higher degree of rotation therefore their total time under tension would not be as great. THis could be one reason why type 1, although harder to hypertrophy, is the preferential type that is hypertrophied during typical BB routines IE many sets, longer total tension time on the types 1 because they can handle longer tension before fatigue.
So we get back to what would cause a longer tension time on the type II, naturally the load would need to be heavy enough to recruit them, secondly we would need to extend the tension time that these MUs recieve, IE fatigue managment.
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is interesting stuff, which raises a question or three.
I've assumed that the biggest difference between competitive bodybuilders and competitive lifters is that typical competitive bodybuilding routines (when steroid aided) build a lot more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. more sarcomere hypertrophy for the lifters. Dan's article makes that seem unlikely, unless there is a big difference in relative amounts of type I v type II development.
Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
Also keep in mind that there is a large difference in work betwen the two extremes.
Weightlifters generally use heavier load but less total work, whereas BB use somewhat lighter loads but much greater volumes of great.
When trying to equate the work done the problem is fatigue, IE it's much harder to get in the same workload with your 3RM than your 10.
As far as fiber types there is a mixed bag depending on muscle examined but for the most part we are all about 50/50, some may be 60/40 II/1 or the opposite but we all generally fall into the realm of 50/50.
Which is why training for a specific type is ridiculous to me at least, other may disagree. If working within a load that recruits all fibers the bigger difference would be fatigue rate of the MUs themselves, IE higher fatigue rate MUs would have a higher degree of rotation therefore their total time under tension would not be as great. THis could be one reason why type 1, although harder to hypertrophy, is the preferential type that is hypertrophied during typical BB routines IE many sets, longer total tension time on the types 1 because they can handle longer tension before fatigue.
So we get back to what would cause a longer tension time on the type II, naturally the load would need to be heavy enough to recruit them, secondly we would need to extend the tension time that these MUs recieve, IE fatigue managment.
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,15:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
Another thing to bear in mind is that weightlifters often tend to be better suited to lifting than the average Joe because they have genetically better-than-average leverage from better suited limb lengths/tendon insertion points/proportions etc. Plus there's the skill factor over pure brute force.
There is no doubt, however, that Ronnie is stronger now than he was whe he was smaller!
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,15:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. If the difference is not in the amount of sarcoplasmic v sarcomere hypertrophy, are we to conclude that it's in relative amounts of type I v type II hypertrophy? If not that, then I have to conclude that Ronnie should be stronger, not weaker. If the strength differential is all CNS, then to be a champion lifter (ignoring weight class limits) one should train as a bodybuilder, and get as big as possible. Then, just try to maintain size while switching to more frequent low rep heavy work to develop CNS efficiency.</div>
Another thing to bear in mind is that weightlifters often tend to be better suited to lifting than the average Joe because they have genetically better-than-average leverage from better suited limb lengths/tendon insertion points/proportions etc. Plus there's the skill factor over pure brute force.
There is no doubt, however, that Ronnie is stronger now than he was whe he was smaller!
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. </div>
Who are these people? I want names!
(Lifting N Tx @ Sep. 20 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, bodybuilders are strong, and yes, lifters have big muscles. However, there are certainly lifters who are stronger than, say, Ronnie Coleman, but have significantly smaller muscles. </div>
Who are these people? I want names!